TY - JOUR
T1 - Does climate impact inflatable penile prosthesis infection (IPP) risk?
T2 - Assessment of temperature and dew point on IPP infections
AU - PUMP (Prosthetic Urology Multi-institutional Partnership) collaborators
AU - Barham, David W
AU - Pyrgidis, Nikolaos
AU - Amini, Eliad
AU - Hammad, Muhammed
AU - Miller, Jake
AU - Andrianne, Robert
AU - Burnett, Arthur L
AU - Gross, Kelli
AU - Hatzichristodoulou, Georgios
AU - Hotaling, James
AU - Hsieh, Tung-Chin
AU - Jenkins, Lawrence C
AU - Jones, James M
AU - Lentz, Aaron
AU - Modgil, Vaibhav
AU - Osmonov, Daniar
AU - Park, Sung Hun
AU - Pearce, Ian
AU - Perito, Paul
AU - Sadeghi-Nejad, Hossein
AU - Sempels, Maxime
AU - Suarez-Sarmiento, Alfredo
AU - Simhan, Jay
AU - van Renterghem, Koenraad
AU - Warner, J Nicholas
AU - Ziegelmann, Matthew
AU - Yafi, Faysal A
AU - Gross, Martin S
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The International Society of Sexual Medicine. All rights reserved.
PY - 2024/5/1
Y1 - 2024/5/1
N2 - BACKGROUND: Variations in climate have been associated with a greater risk of surgical site infections, urinary tract infections, and changes in the skin microbiome; however, limited data exist on the impact of climate on inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infections.AIM: We sought to evaluate the impact of climate on the risk of IPP infections in a large international, multicenter cohort.METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients undergoing IPP surgery. We then evaluated whether the month or season, during which surgery was performed, affected device infections. Implant infections were defined as infections requiring device explantation. A univariate logistic regression analysis was undertaken.OUTCOMES: Our primary outcome was implant infection.RESULTS: A total of 5289 patients with a mean age of 62.2 ± 10.8 years received IPP placement. There was a fairly even distribution of implants performed in each season. A total of 103 (1.9%) infections were recorded. There were 32 (31.1%) IPP infections in patients who underwent surgery in the summer, followed by 28 (27.2%) in the winter, 26 (25.2%) in the spring, and 17 (16.5%) in the fall. No statistically significant differences were recorded in terms of season (P = .19) and month (P = .29). The mean daily temperature (P = .43), dew point (P = .43), and humidity (P = .92) at the time of IPP placement was not associated with infection.CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings provide reassurance to prosthetic urologists that infection reduction strategies do not need to be tailored to local climate.STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Climate data were not directly recorded for each hospital, but rather based on the monthly averages in the city where the surgery was performed.CONCLUSION: The climate at time of IPP placement and time of year of surgery is not associated with IPP infection risk.
AB - BACKGROUND: Variations in climate have been associated with a greater risk of surgical site infections, urinary tract infections, and changes in the skin microbiome; however, limited data exist on the impact of climate on inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infections.AIM: We sought to evaluate the impact of climate on the risk of IPP infections in a large international, multicenter cohort.METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients undergoing IPP surgery. We then evaluated whether the month or season, during which surgery was performed, affected device infections. Implant infections were defined as infections requiring device explantation. A univariate logistic regression analysis was undertaken.OUTCOMES: Our primary outcome was implant infection.RESULTS: A total of 5289 patients with a mean age of 62.2 ± 10.8 years received IPP placement. There was a fairly even distribution of implants performed in each season. A total of 103 (1.9%) infections were recorded. There were 32 (31.1%) IPP infections in patients who underwent surgery in the summer, followed by 28 (27.2%) in the winter, 26 (25.2%) in the spring, and 17 (16.5%) in the fall. No statistically significant differences were recorded in terms of season (P = .19) and month (P = .29). The mean daily temperature (P = .43), dew point (P = .43), and humidity (P = .92) at the time of IPP placement was not associated with infection.CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings provide reassurance to prosthetic urologists that infection reduction strategies do not need to be tailored to local climate.STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Climate data were not directly recorded for each hospital, but rather based on the monthly averages in the city where the surgery was performed.CONCLUSION: The climate at time of IPP placement and time of year of surgery is not associated with IPP infection risk.
KW - climate
KW - erectile dysfunction
KW - infection
KW - inflatable penile prosthesis
KW - Climate
KW - Temperature
KW - Humans
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Risk Factors
KW - Male
KW - Penile Implantation/adverse effects
KW - Prosthesis-Related Infections/epidemiology
KW - Aged
KW - Penile Prosthesis/adverse effects
KW - Retrospective Studies
KW - Seasons
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85192113664&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/jsxmed/qdae023
DO - 10.1093/jsxmed/qdae023
M3 - Article
C2 - 38481017
SN - 1743-6095
VL - 21
SP - 500
EP - 504
JO - Journal of Sexual Medicine
JF - Journal of Sexual Medicine
IS - 5
ER -
